LENNON to be upgraded to incorporate real-time data

[Watershed]

As reported here:

LENNON fare settlement system to be upgraded to incorporate real-world data and support better planning

A major project is underway to renew the LENNON computer system which allocates revenue from two million rail journeys per day to the relevant train operators. Johnny Astbury, CEO for Transport & Mobility at technology company Magellan, tells Rail Business UK how changing from a...

www.railbusinessuk.com

A major project is underway to renew the LENNON computer system which allocates revenue from two million rail journeys per day to the relevant train operators.

...

UK rail tickets generally offer a degree of flexibility in the route used, and LENNON allocates revenue across all the possible routes that a passenger may have taken by using a probability-based model. However, Magellan says the complex statistical rules are ultimately based on the routes people might have taken in 1997, instead of how they actually behave in a post-Covid and very digital world. The modernisation programme which is now underway includes the replacement of the legacy ORCATS engine with a more flexible and scalable system.

Another major limitation of LENNON is that it only knows what train services exist in the timetable, which is updated twice a year in December and May, and not whether the timetabled trains actually ran.

Rail Business UK spoke to Magellan during a period when many train services were disrupted because of unusually hot weather. ‘We have got a heatwave’, said Astbury. ‘If you imagine that as a result, a train operator reduces its service by 25%, so fewer trains run on the day, the allocation model won’t factor that into consideration. It will still stick to the six-monthly timetable that’s put forward, so it will allocate the revenue as if the trains did run to the timetable.

‘It’s working on old data, not real data. What we’re proposing is to change that, so rather than allocate on old data, we will do a dynamic allocation. We will check what services ran on the day of travel and allocate the revenue according to the services that have actually run, not the ones that theoretically could or should have run.’

I wonder whether this will spell the death of open access operators attempting ORCATS "raids", and how it will impact TOC only walk-up fares. With a greater degree of accuracy as to how many passengers actually use a given operator perhaps the latter will no longer provide a financial benefit?

 

[Andrew1395]

I have to say the article is not “very accurate” For a start ORCATS factors only apply to inter available products where operators have not “agreed” a set of allocation factors. While it is true the demand profiles in ORCATS have not been updated since privatisation.

The ORCATS mathematical model is pretty good, and variations from actual captured travel data is not that different. At the end of the day this is about slicing up the cake, not making it bigger, which is what the focus on dynamic pricing should be.

I think the ORCATS raid dragon was calmed down a lot at privatisation when a more formalised income dispute process came into force.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As reported here:

LENNON fare settlement system to be upgraded to incorporate real-world data and support better planning

A major project is underway to renew the LENNON computer system which allocates revenue from two million rail journeys per day to the relevant train operators. Johnny Astbury, CEO for Transport & Mobility at technology company Magellan, tells Rail Business UK how changing from a...

www.railbusinessuk.com

I wonder whether this will spell the death of open access operators attempting ORCATS "raids", and how it will impact TOC only walk-up fares. With a greater degree of accuracy as to how many passengers actually use a given operator perhaps the latter will no longer provide a financial benefit?

Reads to me like it's just going to use up to date timetable data, not ticket scans etc, so more to prevent a TOC getting a share of revenue if they "packed up and went home" on a given day?

Seems a bit late in the privatisation day...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2026 ==

I've created a speculative thread about the benefits of this in a GBR world: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...hould-these-really-have-had-their-day.305878/

 

[Haywain]

When I read the thread title I thought that LENNON was going to have to be renamed LENN!

I wonder whether this will spell the death of open access operators attempting ORCATS "raids", and how it will impact TOC only walk-up fares.

I can see it having an impact on OA operators, but the question is how significant that will be.

Seems a bit late in the privatisation day...

LENNON was a creation of British Rail and it, or something similar, will still be needed under GBR.

 

[JB_B]

I have to say the article is not “very accurate” For a start ORCATS factors only apply to inter available products where operators have not “agreed” a set of allocation factors. While it is true the demand profiles in ORCATS have not been updated since privatisation. The ORCATS mathematical model is pretty good, and variations from actual captured travel data is not that different. At the end of the day this is about slicing up the cake, not making it bigger, which is what the focus on dynamic pricing should be. I think the ORCATS raid dragon was calmed down a lot at privatisation when a more formalised income dispute process came into force.

It's interesting that the demand profiles that feed into the model haven't been updated since the mid nineties. I'm guessing that's partly because the share of overall rail revenue that actually depends on them for allocation is very low - are you able to give a ballpark figure?

 

[mickey]

In principle this could lead to better services, particularly if it stops operators/managers being so willing to can services at the drop of a hat. At the moment there’s little reward for those who put in a bit more effort to keep things running.

(Yes I’m aware the reality will likely be different, but let me dream for a minute )

 

[redreni]

LENNON was a creation of British Rail and it, or something similar, will still be needed under GBR.

Why? (Genuine question - I have no firm view whether a system like this is or should be needed, it's just not obvious to me why it would be).

 

[SargeNpton]

Why? (Genuine question - I have no firm view whether a system like this is or should be needed, it's just not obvious to me why it would be).

As well as allocating ticket revenue between different rail operators, it also apportions the relevant non-rail revenue to bus and ferry operators for through tickets (and admission fees in some cases).

 

[Watershed]

Why? (Genuine question - I have no firm view whether a system like this is or should be needed, it's just not obvious to me why it would be).

Because not all revenue will flow purely to GBR, even ignoring through tickets onto bus links etc. for a moment.

You will still fave interavailable tickets on journeys where there are also OAOs and other non-GBR operators that could be used, for example TfL concessions, Merseyrail, TfW, ScotRail, T&W Metro and so on.

 

[Andrew1395]

It's interesting that the demand profiles that feed into the model haven't been updated since the mid nineties. I'm guessing that's partly because the share of overall rail revenue that actually depends on them for allocation is very low - are you able to give a ballpark figure?

They were last updated in the early 1990s - There was no appetite to touch (or pay) ORCATS. I am aware of only three changes since privatisation - removing the speed threshold due to HS1, changing the sample dates to anywithin the timetable period, rather than a Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday of the same week. Finally with Elizabeth Line the central London walk times ( a modification required by Network South East in the late 1980s), were updated - paid for by TfL.

The Demand Profiles are a central building block of the creating of Opportunities To Travel. In effect all ORCATS allocations and therefore all revenue that use ORCATS allocation factors rely on them!

 

[mickey]

Why? (Genuine question - I have no firm view whether a system like this is or should be needed, it's just not obvious to me why it would be).

Every large organisation splits revenues and costs by some kind of business unit - GBR will be no different (and indeed have already published an idea of how they envisage them looking). It won’t all just go into a big pot with happy families, that’s not how the world works. The positive spin is that having lower-level management will at least allow some focus to remain on areas that might otherwise be eclipsed by a ‘bigger beast’.

Examples of other companies doing similar are airlines (e.g. Ryanair has four individual airline sub-divisions, and what we think of as BA is actually Mainline, Cityflyer and Euroflyer) and supermarkets (e.g. Tesco will absolutely be keeping Expresses in a different unit from Extras), plus the NHS, which arguably has more sub-units than they know what to do with.

 

[Andrew1395]

You also need to record the industries revenues and liabilities (season tickets, and monies owed to third parties), and to record journeys by flow for reporting and analytical reasons. Plus a system to do the net settlement of commission to third party retailers, and to ensure that commission is reclaimed when customer are refunded, etc, etc.

BR had a predecessor system called CAPRI. Computer Analysis of Passenger Rail Information. This provided data to analysts each four week reporting period. LENNON was built on the foundations of that system. Its big leap forward was the provision of data each day. Hence Latest Earnings…it was launched in 2002.

ORCATS itself was created to demonstrate to the Treasury that the industry could demonstrate how investment in a route flowed through to the accounts.